Month: April 2011

I am going to write a long answer for this. Let’s examine some analogy first:

Say you are farmers of mangos. Say there are those willing to pay a lot for those mangos.

You have several options
1. You can give the mangos away for free.
2. You can let your mangos rots.
3. You can sell your mangos to “small buyers” with great discount for those least able to pay for it.
4. You can max out your profit by selling it at market price?

Question: If 4 is illegal, will price for mangos go up or down? Does it make sense that some people want price to go down?

1. is free sex
2. is abstinence
3. is marriage
4. is prostitution

Obviously very few would do the first 3 if 4 is legal.

When it comes to mating, women are like mangos farmers. Their offers expire quickly.

Both men and women got things to offer to each other. Each of us want to get the best offers. Our offers’ market value drop as a function of time. Women’s offers drop very fast.

Yet, government prohibits humans to freely exchange what they have. The only alternative to government endorsed marriage is celibacy (option 2), and free sex (option 1).

Now lets’ examine another analogy.

You have a car. I decided who you can rent the car to, who can drive the car, who can sell the car, who can buy the car. It’s your car, but I decide. People would pay me for your car right? Why should they pay you? I decide. If latter you choose to take ownership of your own car, would I allow? Of course not, unless you got bigger gun than I am or offer money or something.

Let’s look at Taliban. Women “own” their body. Taliban decides who can rent it, who can use it, who can sell it, who can buy it. It’s the women’s body, but Taliban decides. What would Afgan males do? Obey the women? Of course not. What afgan males do is DIE for Taliban.

That’s how we control people. Know what they want and control it. That’s the same reason why we have laws against ecstasy, ganja, imported product, inheritance, etc.

That’s how Taliban are in power by the way. If we take away Taliban’s control of women, without bombing, without violence, all those regime would crumble by themselves.

However, western civilization is surprisingly not that different.

Western countries, just like Taliban, do not want to let women to freely choose who they want to mate with and on what terms. If women freely choose, too many will pick Bill Gates, Brad Pitt. The other male voters won’t get any or can only grab the ugly ones (unless consensual women trafficking is legal).

So just like the Taliban power decide what women should want. Usually mating against best selling men or those who can pay are heavily discouraged to ration females to more males, including poor, homosexuals and impotent ones.

So the answer is because most males can’t afford them if it were legal. It’s the same reason why polygamy is
illegal. To ration females in equal share for everyone, especially to those who can’t pay. I also mostly agree with Jason’s answer.

Women too have intensive to avoid prostitution. Ugly women, for example, would be better of if prostitution is illegal. They don’t get a high price in prostitution anyway. Prohibiting prostitution will hurt their inter sex competitors more than themselves. If something hurt others more than it hurt you, many humans will find that preferable. Just ask a suicide bomber.

Well not all married women will be out of biz, but it’ll be much tougher for alimony seeking vipers to get clients if they have to compete with cheaper hotter eastern european babes.

Prostitution is effectively a privatized marriage. Prohibition of prostitution is then a price control. Plain and simple.

In prostitution women’s right of her body is respected. She decides the price, which will be very high if legal given that all the richest males would bid too. She decides who she can mate with. If she only want to sell her self to Brad Pitt or Bill Gates, rather than to someone single, it’s up to her. If she wants to give discount for richer smarter taller men, it’s up to her. If she wants high salary with no severance pay, it’s up to her. If she want her mate to only pay for his children, in exchange of getting richer mates that are willing to pay more, it’s up to her.

Everything is up to her.

In marriage, she decides little. Government, rather than consumers, or often religious leaders, decide who she can mate with and on what terms.

In Taliban women can only marry Taliban supporters or somebody the Taliban allow. See why Taliban has many loyal supporters? Legalize prostitution and porn in Afganistan and we’ll see the end of religious extremists. So the Taliban is effectively the pimp of all women for they, rather than the women, decide who and on what terms women can mate.

In US, she can only marry single men, which usually of lower quality for not being able to attract even a single mate. Or she can sell her self for free which is just below her market price. Same reasoning. Congress has effectively become the pimp against women’s wish.

Marriage means women need to charge less to poorer males. A housewife is a job with low salary and high severance pay. What kind of job have that kind of arrangement? The one whose deal made by government rather than consenting parties.

That effectively kick the rich out of mating market. As all price control, it causes market distortion and inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to poverty. Now, this market distortion is the biggest market distortion ever. It’s virtually the single cause of all poverty in the world.

The mere act of pointing this out will often meet harsh ad hominem attack by facists for no logical reason.

Why not let the women decide? You may disagree with me that prostitution is better than marriage. Fine. Why not let each girl decide? Who are we deciding what’s best for women?

NB: My maid’s sister got married and the husband just left leaving debt. It’s not even illegal. The law does nothing against that type of behavior. I saw many poor kids begging on the street. It’s NOT illegal to beget kids into poverty. Yet when some rich males consensually attract women on terms they agree, it’s a crime.

My class mate got married. She wanted a divorce but her husband does not let her. That’s what marriage really is in most countries: Legalized rape.

To persuade women to agree to get married, quite obviously those rapists need to prohibit better arrangements. In Taliban, women can’t even work to effectively force them to get married.

So no, I don’t hate women. I do not advocate rape or forcing. But that’s what forcing truly means, taking away all better alternatives under outrageous irrational, and hence naturally religious, pretexts.

Prostitution is effectively a privatized marriage. Prohibition of prostitution is then a price control. Plain and simple.

In prostitution women’s right of her body is respected. She decides the price, which will be very high if legal given that all the richest males would bid too. She decides who she can mate with. If she only want to sell her self to Brad Pitt or Bill Gates, rather than to someone single, it’s up to her. If she wants to give discount for richer smarter taller men, it’s up to her. If she wants high salary with no severance pay, it’s up to her. If she want her mate to only pay for his children, in exchange of getting richer mates that are willing to pay more, it’s up to her.

Everything is up to her.

In marriage, she decides little. Government, rather than consumers, or often religious leaders, decide who she can mate with and on what terms.

In Taliban women can only marry Taliban supporters. So the Taliban is effectively the pimp of all women for they, rather than the women, decide who and on what terms women can mate.

In US, she can only marry single men, which usually of lower quality for not being able to attract even a single mate. Same reasoning. Congress has effectively become the pimp against women’s wish.

Marriage means women need to charge less to poorer males. A housewife is a job with low salary and high severance pay. What kind of job have that kind of arrangement? The one whose deal made by government rather than consenting parties.

That effectively kick the rich out of mating market. As all price control, it causes market distortion and inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to poverty. Now, this market distortion is the biggest market distortion ever. It’s virtually the single cause of all poverty in the world.

The mere act of pointing this out will often meet harsh ad hominem attack by facists for no logical reason.

NB: My maid’s sister got married and the husband just left leaving debt. It’s not even illegal. The law does nothing against that type of behavior. I saw many poor kids begging on the street. It’s NOT illegal to beget kids into poverty. Yet when some rich males consensually attract women on terms they agree, it’s a crime.

My class mate got married. She wanted a divorce but her husband does not let her. That’s what marriage really is in most countries: Legalized rape.

Why not let the women decide? Because those in power don’t like what
free women will decide. Just like slave owners do not like slaves
deciding to be free, the same way powerful politicians do no want us to freely decide terms of our consensual arrangements. When we choose, we don’t choose them. That’s why.

To persuade women to agree to get married, quite obviously those rapists need to prohibit better arrangements. In Taliban, women can’t even work to effectively force them to get married.

So no, I don’t hate women. I do not advocate rape or forcing. But that’s what forcing truly means, taking away all better alternatives under outrageous irrational, and hence naturally religious, pretexts.

Why American spend more money on poor american kids than poor african kids? They’re both not their kids right?
PC answers: Far from the eye, far from the heart.
More reasonable answer: African kids can’t vote for congress.

Why prostitution is illegal in muslim countries while rape requires 4 witnesses?
PC answers: Because prostitution is immoral. Also we need to be absolutely sure before condemning people.
More reasonable answer: Because males don’t care about women’s freedom. They care about whether they get the women or not. Prohibition of prostitution takes away rich paying males out of mating market.

Why war is more acceptable than death penalty?
PC answers: Because war is necessary and death penalty is not.
More reasonable answer: Because people don’t care whether you’re guilty or not. They care that they’re not you. Also quite often, people fear and respect the cruel. Capitalists in Lebanon can’t influence decisions on Israel’s parliament. Hezbollah can.

The strongest Gorilla get laid beget more kids.
Humans are the same. Except that our power doesn’t come from our muscles. Our power comes from our skills in persuading other gorillas to beat up our enemies.

let’s make a little bit more politically correct. my questions are:
1. can we quantify/qualify evilness?
2. can we categorize them?
3. should we add human intentions in the equations or just judge from the results/consequences of evil actions?
4. if evil is quantifiable, are we permitted to commit a lesser one to avoid a larger evil?
5. how subjective is evil?
6. who pays?

‎1. Market distortion 2. Market->good. Oppose market ->bad. 3. On positive, biz works or not, judge on result. On negative, I don’t know. It’s too easy to pretend not to do things deliberately. I would say 80 percent on result 20 intent. 4. Yes. Wealth redistribution is evil. But I like that more than killing each other to decide who get the most wealth redistribution. When humans are poor, we need to punish the guilty. When we’re all richer, rewarding the not guilty makes more sense. 5. Something is evil if it deviates people’s interest from productivity. How evil? How big the deviation is. 6. Who pays? Who else can? Capitalists. However, capitalists will shop for the one charging the least and provide opportunities to make the most profit. Countries will compete with each other to provide highest security with the lowest tax. The market will take care the rest.

Alt answer for 5: Evil is always subjective and relative in proportion to zero sum aspects of live. Good means good for you and quite often it means bad for others. It also means things are not evil enough. A country with 5% tax is good if all the rest charge 40%. If world is perfectly zero sum, then there is no objective morality whatsoever. Good for me will always be bad for others. Some aspects of life with too much zero sum aspect is sex. Free sex -> Good for Ariel. Less than absolute free sex -> Good for the rest. Polygamy ->Good for politically powerful. Prostitution -> Good for capitalists. Sex outside marriage -> Good for charming liberals that want to breed without paying. Monogamy -> Stalemate.